Russia remains stalwart in its laws that aim to curb the influence of the West's gay-friendly culture on Russian youth. Meanwhile, last week, in a stunning turn of events, India's high court reinstituted a nineteenth-century law against sodomy. On cue, the ligbitist kibitzers are going crazy in such homophile haunts as the New Yorker and the Guardian, expressing total outrage that there should exist, anywhere on the globe, nations that do not think it's normal or appropriate to subsidize and celebrate men sodomizing boys.

I cannot blame Russia, India, or any nation for reacting to what they see in the West with measures that I would ostensibly oppose on principle. Russia's ban on promoting homosexuality to children does impinge on free speech. India's ban on sodomy is an intrusion into the sex lives of consenting adults. But we don't live in an ostensible world. We live in a real world, where there are real gay organizations in the West, who are engaging in real machinations to spread their sickness all over the globe.

I really have to wonder if the treatment of homosexuals in society has been cyclical throughout history, where it was tolerated for a while until the behavior got out of control and threatened the stability of civilization. We can see that there are many in that community who aren’t satisfied with merely coexisting or being tolerated, but want preferential treatment and an elimination of any criticism of their lifestyle choice. The trend seems to be going beyond acceptance and will force some sort of a confrontation with the majority of the population who are not homosexuals.

A lower court (High Court of Delhi), during a case, ruled the old laws against unnatural sex (which includes sodomy) null and void since the court saw them as an infringement of human freedom, about a year ago. When the case went to the Supreme Court of India through public petition, it ruled about two weeks ago that the courts have no power to amend constitutional laws and the separation of powers among the executive, legislature and the judiciary necessitated the Supreme Court overturning the High Court ruling, thereby reinstating the laws making homosexual acts illegal in India. This is where things stand today.

Now that the Supreme Court has directed that the laws be amended by the legislature, it has become a political issue. The current government of India is centre-right. They are unpopular and the opinion poll prediction is that the right-wing nationalists are going to win the general elections next year. The current government wants to change the laws against homosexuality before it is voted out.

However, as a deeply conservative country, especially on matters pertaining to sexuality and marriage, the homosexual activists have a bleak outlook for their influence in India.

My health insurance plan, which I liked and wanted to keep, was cancelled this year because of obamacare, and the replacement plan offers less coverage for a greater monthly premium and higher deductibles.

Additionally, there are higher monthly payments for people that smoke, and people who are obese.

Oddly, there is NOT a higher premium for gays, who's lifestyle choices are just as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than those of smokers and the obese.

I must take exception to the manner in which the author states that he can not blame Russia and India for taking on the gays, using a phrase that conveys a lack of conviction, almost apologetic in a sense that is less than emphatic in belief. I can not blame them? Not only do I not blame them, what he should have said deserved to be stated in language much more supportive, indignant and unambiguous by saying I applaud their sense of righteous indignation, I admire the morally upstanding position they've taken in not yielding to the political pressure that is the depravity, abomination that defines the gay life-style.

I do disagree with his characterization of a 19 year old as a “child” because they can’t buy alcohol in the USA. They are legally emancipated, can join the army, vote, buy a gun (at least a long gun), and get married. And until the Feds pressured the states they could buy alcohol in some states. They are responsible for their own decisions.

President Putin may also be trying to deal with Russia's horrific demographic problem (after years of Communism and war). Homosexuality is not helping the demographic problem either (to put it mildly).

Incidentally, it has been postulated that the President is himself a homosexual (Bathouse Barry). The President is a liar and a conman who conned the idiot populace into voting for him. President Obama skills as a conman can be explained by the worlds of those bright, queer admen, Kirk and Pill, who wrote the homosexual brainwashing tract, "After the Ball."

Kirk and pill noted that men who have sex with men are excellent frauds and conmen even as they blame it on society's prejudice against homosexuals. We are in for some truly horrific times all the way around.

I cannot blame Russia, India, or any nation for reacting to what they see in the West with measures that I would ostensibly oppose on principle. Russia's ban on promoting homosexuality to children does impinge on free speech

Since "the West" does not necessarily represent the pinnacle of morality, the above statement is incomprehensible. It's not as if Russia and India have decreed the summary execution of any effeminate found in the streets! The Russians at least haven't even criminalized homosexual behavior, only the recruitment of the young into the lifestyle.Really hate being a Neanderthal but, what am I missing?

To be clear, this self-righteous apotheosis of free speech is downright bizarre in a country where the wrong use of "free speech" would earn me a cordial visit from your friendly neighborhood Secret Service (he who has an ear to hear, let him hear) even in an anonymous message board. Bottom line, there's no principle to which I subscribe that would cause me to oppose the measures taken by Russia and India.

I once sat down and actually crunched all the numbers. I found that the total national costs for treating AIDs and STDs was a lot more than the cost of treatments for obesity. Sticks in my mind it was about 17x more expensive. I didn't crunch the numbers for smokers though. That would be interesting to do if I had the time. I completely agree with you asking that question, as they clearly cost more from a healthcare standpoint.

I used to work for a major defense contractor. I got laid off, lost my great insurance, and now at my new job I have to pay more for worse coverage and costs just went up again.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.